known earlier,—but that does not tell us when they were systematically
tabulated. The (interpolated) list of Canaanites (16-18) is assigned by
Jeremias (l.c. 256) to the age of Tiglath-pileser III.; but since a considerable
percentage of the names occurs in the Tel-Amarna letters
(v.i.), the grounds of that determination are not apparent. With
regard to the section on Nimrod (8-12), all that can fairly be said is
that it is probably later than the Kaššite conquest of Babylonia: how
much later, we cannot tell. On the attempt to deduce a date from the
description of the Assyrian cities, see p. 212.—There are, besides, two
special sources of error which import an element of uncertainty into
all these investigations. (a) Since only two names ((
Hebrew characters) and (Hebrew characters)) are
really duplicated in P and J,[1] we may suppose that the redactor has
as a general practice omitted names from one source which he gives
in the other; and we cannot be quite sure whether the omission has
been made in P or in J. (b) According to Jewish tradition, the total
number of names is 70; and again the suspicion arises that names
may have been added or deleted so as to bring out that result.[2] and (Hebrew characters)
The threefold division of mankind is a feature common to P and J, and to both recensions of J if there were two (above, p. 188 f.). It is probable, also, though not certain, that each of the Tables placed the groups in the reverse order of birth: Japheth—Ham—Shem; or Canaan—Japheth—Shem (see v.21). The basis of the classification may not have been ethnological in any sense; it may have been originally suggested by the tradition that Noah had just three sons, in accordance with a frequently observed tendency to close a genealogy with three names (419ff. 532 1126 etc.). Still, the classification must follow some ethnographic principle, and we have to consider what that principle is. The more obvious distinctions of colour, language, and race are easily seen to be inapplicable.
The ancient Egyptian division of foreigners into Negroes (black),
Asiatics (light brown), and Libyans (white) is as much geographical
as chromatic (Erman, LAE, 32); but in any case the survey of Gn. 10
excludes the true negroes, and differences of colour amongst the
peoples included could not have been sufficiently marked to form a
basis of classification. It is certainly noteworthy that the Egyptian
monuments represent the Egyptians, Kōš, Punt, and Phœnicians
